`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00391
`Patent 7,647,633
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO SEAL CERTAIN EXHIBITS UNDER 37
`C.F.R. §§ 42.14 AND 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54, Patent Owner Finjan, Inc.,
`
`(“Finjan”) hereby moves to seal portions of certain exhibits (collectively referred
`
`to herein as the “Subject Exhibit”) to Finjan’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`which are identified below:
`
`Filing/Exhibit Content
`
`Section
`
`Exhibit 2036
`
`
`Supplemental
`Declaration of Phil
`Hartstein in Support of
`Patent Owner’s
`Response
`
`¶¶ 11, 12, 13
`
`¶ 15
`
`Confidential
`Information1
`Contains highly
`confidential
`information regarding
`licensing practices
`Contains highly
`confidential
`information regarding
`licensing practices
`
`I.
`
`GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR SEALING CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL
`INFORMATION
`
`The Board’s standards for granting motions to seal are discussed in Garmin
`
`International v. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, IPR2012-00001 (Paper 34 at 4-
`
`5)(P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2013) and Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC v. PPC
`
`Broadband, Inc., Case IPR2014-00440 (Papers 46, 47, 49) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 14,
`
`
`1 Further details regarding the confidential information regarding each of the
`
`exhibits identified in this chart are explained infra at § I. A copy of the proposed
`
`Default Protective Order previously had been filed as Exhibit 2026 as part of
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Entry of Protective Order. See Paper No. 13.
`
`1
`
`
`
`and 17, 2015). The standard for granting a motion to seal is “good cause.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.54(a). The moving party bears the burden of showing that the relief
`
`requested should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). In particular:
`
`The rules aim to strike a balance between the public’s interest in
`maintaining a complete and understandable file history and the
`parties’ interest in protecting truly sensitive information.
`*
`*
`*
`Confidential Information: The rules identify confidential information
`in a manner consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`26(c)(1)(G), which provides for protective orders for trade secret or
`other confidential research, development, or commercial information.
`
`Office Trial and Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14, 2012); 35
`
`U.S.C. § 316(a)(7); 37 C.F.R. § 42.54.
`
`The Subject Exhibit contain confidential information requiring that they be
`
`designated as “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL” under Default Protective
`
`Order (see Exhibit 2026). The Subject Exhibit contains highly confidential
`
`information of Finjan and third parties. Specifically, it discusses and reveals
`
`confidential information regarding Finjan’s and/or third party’s licensing practices
`
`including highly sensitive information relating to such licenses. The confidential
`
`information disclosed in the Subject Exhibit is outlined in the chart above.
`
`The sealing of the foregoing is of particular importance because the public
`
`disclosure of such “truly sensitive information” would impact Finjan’s and third
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`party’s competitive position in the market. In particular, information regarding
`
`certain licenses, and the development efforts and strategies at Finjan, would allow
`
`competitors to access information that would significantly harm Finjan’s
`
`competitive position in the marketplace.
`
`
`
`Furthermore, and notwithstanding the foregoing, granting this Motion would
`
`not prejudice nor impact this underlying proceeding. The public’s interest in
`
`accessing the information requiring that the limited identified portions of the
`
`Subject Exhibit be sealed for the purposes of the patentability of the challenged
`
`claims is unquestionably outweighed by the prejudicial effect and competitive
`
`harm of disclosing the above described confidential business information of third
`
`party.
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF NON-PUBLICATION
`
`To the best of Finjan’s knowledge, the confidential information contained in
`
`the Subject Exhibit has not been made publically available.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF CONFERENCE WITH OPPOSING PARTY
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.54
`
`Finjan previously met and conferred with Petitioner regarding the scope of
`
`the Default Protective Order. Petitioner did not object to the entry of the Default
`
`Protective Order.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IV. PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Finjan proposes that the Default Protective Order found in Appendix B of
`
`the Trial Practice Guide be entered. A copy of the Default Protective Order was
`
`previously filed as Exhibit 2026. Petitioner did not object to the entry of the
`
`Default Protective Order. See Paper No. 13.
`
`V. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Accordingly, good cause exists to warrant entry of the Default Protective
`
`Order and to seal the Subject Exhibit from public disclosure.
`
`Dated: February 13, 2019
`
`
`(Case No. IPR2018-00391)
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/James Hannah/
`
`James Hannah (Reg. No. 56,369)
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Tel: 650.752.1700 Fax: 212.715.8000
`
`Jeffrey H. Price (Reg. No. 69,141)
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212.715.7502 Fax: 212.715.8302
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), that
`
`service was made on the Petitioner as detailed below.
`
`Date of service February 13, 2019
`
`Manner of service Electronic Mail (PDMcPherson@duanemorris.com;
`PCMuldoon@duanemorris.com;
`japowers@duanemorris.com)
`
`Documents served PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO SEAL CERTAIN
`EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Persons Served Patrick D. McPherson
`Patrick Muldoon
`Joseph A. Powers
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/James Hannah/
`
`James Hannah (Reg. No. 56,369)
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road,
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 752-1700
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
